Incel Vs Insol

Incel stands for involuntary celibacy, and it refers to beta and omega males who, for a variety of factors, are horrible with women and wind up enduring long and unwelcome sexless droughts. Rumor has it there are whole forums of quasi-men who, for reasons likely having their origin in mommy’s quickness with the back of her hand, nurse a deep hatred for game and “players”, and who spend most of their time on these gayforums analyzing with the precision of a spectrometer the facial dimensions of various pick-up artists for their conformity to Brad Pitt’s visage, apparently believing that no man ever in the history of the world who didn’t look like Brad Pitt got laid with a cute chick.

The incel is now an internet caricature, loathed and ridiculed by men and women equally. But there’s a female analogue of the incel. And CH was reminded of this when resident female apologist Amy, once again bravely trying to salvage the reputation of her sistren with squirrely semantic maneuvers intended to evade the Guns of Heartisterone, made the claim that there are men who would willingly sleep with fat chicks and that this must mean those men find the fatties sexually attractive.

But what about beta fat guys with no game? There are plenty of them. Who are they going to date? They want relationships. They’re going to end up with women like this [fat] chick. And they must feel some attraction for them if they’re having sex.

Settling isn’t attraction. Settling is, for men, finding a hole that is a little bit wetter than the couch crease. Losers settle for each other all the time. But fat chicks are so repulsive to men that there aren’t enough omega males willing even to settle for them as a last resort and think of England while spelunking the pig. As a result, fat chicks are alone more often and for longer dry spells than are thin girls. And the fatter the girl, the more intractable her involuntary solitude. Call it… Insol.

The Insol is the female equivalent of the Incel. She fails at finding the one thing in life that is most important to women: The love and commitment of a desirable man. Her failure is no less dispiriting or cruelly mock-worthy than is the failure of the omega male who can’t get laid in a brothel with a fistful of hundreds.

People don’t think of fat or ugly women going long spells without love, because those women are adept in ways that beta males aren’t at concealing their misery from public scorn and pity. And, to be sure, the fat chick has a better shot of getting pumped once or twice than does the omega male of getting laid. Because of this slight sexual disparity, and because of the male instinct to project their sensibilities onto the female sex and imagine that getting laid is proof of romantic success, the Insol receives more of a break than the Incel.

Sure, you’ll occasionally hear about fat chicks getting face fucked by drunkards, but rarely will you see them in long term happy relationships with men who aren’t complete rejects. And this reality grows with the pounds. Female fatness has exponentially increasing blowback. Ten extra pounds won’t put too big of a dent in a chubster’s sex life, but 100 extra pounds will relegate her to incel with the omega males.

Loser women, like fat chicks, can sometimes pull off a simulacrun of a relationship, but only after a lot of time alone and sacrifice of anything worth living for. The occasional sight of a fatty in an LTR notwithstanding to the contrary, most fat women go epically long times without a man’s love. You just don’t see them because most fatties don’t advertise their loneliness the way loveless beta males advertise theirs.

The problem with the “even the ugliest/fattest women can get laid” trope is that the issue is not whether a fat chick can manage once in her life to get a weirdo to drill her face for three perfunctory seconds in an alcoholic haze. For women, sex isn’t the relevant metric. Women want love and commitment with a high value man. On that score, fatties fail miserably.

Even if we limit our claim to three second drunken sex with losers, fat chicks still have problems in that department that thinner girls don’t have. It’s hard to directly compare the two groups because thinner/prettier girls are less slutty than fatties and fugs, but if we draw on the subset of sexy thin girls who don’t mind boffing the same losers that fatties boff, then we would find the fatties badly outcompeted for the sexual attention of those losers.

Simply put, there is the tendency of people to miss what they don’t see. Omega and to a lesser extent beta males repeatedly try and fail with women. We see that. Fat chicks, being women first and fatties second, are more passive about courtship. When they fail, it tends to be less spectacular, less conspicuous. They are simply ignored rather than rejected. When fat chicks fail in the dating market, they retreat away from men or they surround themselves with female friends so that they can continue engaging the social scene without the stink of celibacy driving them to isolation or handicapping their ability to converse with strangers. The involuntary loneliness of fat chicks is thus more concealed than the loneliness of loser men.

In contrast, incel men don’t have large groups of socially attractive male friends to shield them from their own failure. The sexual poverty of the male incel is more readily apparent in his loner lifestyle and his bitter, stunted personality. When he fails, he retreats, regroups, fails, retreats again, and the cycle continues. His failure is unmissable.

In the grand scheme, incels and insols are two sides of the same coin. Both lose in the sexual market. Both lose in the LTR market. Both suffer long droughts of sexlessness. If there’s a difference between the omega male incel and the female fatty insol, it’s that perhaps the fatty can amass (heh) a couple more lays in her lifetime than can the omega male. But two extra lays over a lifetime does not a proud, confident, non-bitter woman make.

It’s like poetry. I have only seen one other writer who writes like that, but I can’t imagine it would be the same person. That man’s name is Alex.

Wrote a long post that isn’t showing up. One thing I wrote: we tend to not see that fat women are generally sluttier than slim women (and generally lacking in other ways too), or see their insol, because as CH wrote another time, they are invisible in the calculation.

Proof: consider the statement “He has trouble getting laid.” Fact is that as long as a guy is at least average or slightly below, it is easy to get sex – but with ugly, fat, or much older, undesirable women. But it hurts even to think about it, and so we don’t include them. When we say “He has trouble getting laid” we are only thinking of the desirable women, the others being invisible.

This is not mean. It is just the way the human brain works, obviously. The default line here is between those who accept reality and work with its true nature in mind, and those who deny it and use it to shame and attack their targets.

“we tend to not see that fat women are generally sluttier than slim women”

Didn’t CH say that good looking chicks are more promiscuous once?

[CH: depends what you mean by promiscuity. fat chicks throw themselves at men, but are often rejected or ignored. marginally cute chicks are less desperate than fatsos, but can rack up a lot more partners because there are a lot more men who would reciprocate their flirting.]

That so makes me miss university. There were so many attractive girls in dorms that you could simply spout crap and you’d eventually find one that bites. I often regretted not living in a dorm and having to be just a guest.

On another note, wow that Jew whigger has a weak chin. I understand why he hides it with an ugly beard in his other videos. But hey, he goes and gets a negroid son, props for diluting the self-Chosen race.

Scott, the point is that you still had more attractive girls to hit on so you could be that guy for a couple of college girls. The college students had friends from their towns at other universities so you got to meet attractive girls from other universities too. In my case, going out was a lot cheaper too and I had the available time to go to clubs 2-3 times a week. Even getting a mixed group going for a night out was easy simply because you got to meet a lot of new people. In the first years of university, you’d still know high-school students that invite you to their parties where you get to meet attractive high-school girls. You could meet the attractive girls of a pretty big range of years without putting in much effort.

I’m not saying that all guys were getting laid, it’s just that you had the opportunity if you put in the effort. I kind of regret not taking full advantage of it because I always assumed it’s going to be so. Heck, even traveling in a group was easier to organize then. It’s nice to have your group of friends with you when you go to clubs in other cities because it’s lame to be the only guy there. You can meet some local girls. Now all these things no longer apply and it’s pretty lame. I can’t say I put in much effort and I did get all these things. I won’t lie and say I had sex with dozens of pretty girls, but you always had a pretty girl available due to the sheer volume of new social connections, so nexting wasn’t an issue. I don’t think I can describe it better than this. I didn’t mean being at university meant you left the place with 50 women fucked if you were the average guy.

“Life however begins after 30. That’s when the women that age are throwing themselves at you.”

…with their bloated bellies, sagging tits, cunty attitude, and bastard spawn in tow. Add a shit-ton of college and credit card debt, and you’ve got a former carousel-riding ho who’s hungry for your dough and will fuck you six ways to Sunday to get it. She never gave you the time of day in college, but all of a sudden, she’s blowing up your phone after seeing Facebook photos of you riding around in your new Benz and partying with club skanks. Hmmm…

The real question is: why settle for over-the-hill when you know you can plow a young up-and-cummer, instead?

This is my problem right now. I need to angle my life in a way that makes it more efficient to meet young attractive girls than it is after you graduate from university. He’s right though about slaying if you have money or if you’re really good with women. I didn’t manage a harem, but getting new girls was easy enough. I suppose the way to go now is start some hobbies that are popular with 18-22 years old girls and play them for entree in their circles with even more girls.

“In college trawl for 18 year old freshly graduating high schoolers. College is your last chance to do that on a regular and successful basis.”
Are there no other ways?

The way he conducts himself is a pretty obvious cue that’s not your typical nerd/geek. Most nerds have trouble talking with attractive girl without sounding like pre-programmed robots or keep a conversation going smoothly with zero awkwardness.

It’s something that really takes time to develop. You could calculate everything that you are going to say to a girl ahead of time like a chess grandmaster, but if you haven’t got the experience or the innate talent – it’s just not going to work. Learned the hard way.

Most lesbians won’t be satisfied with her either. Lesbians think and act different then women. She may “discover” she is a lesbian but she won’t fit in. This is why most women who like women know at an early age they are different.

Master is so contrary today. I never claimed fat girls didn’t have longer dry spells than thin girls. I was challenging your suggestion that NO guy would/could ever be in a relationship with a fat girl, so all fat women will die alone. I understand no guy WANTS a fat girl, but a fat loser guy doesn’t have much choice. So fat girl marries fat guy. And the fat guy must have SOME level of attraction for her if they have sex.

There will be a market for fat/obese women as long as there are fat guys w/o game who want relationships. That’s all I was saying.

A Polish worker has come up with an unusual excuse after being caught in the act with a vacuum cleaner. The building contractor claimed he was cleaning his underpants with Henry Hoover when he was found naked and on his knees in a hospital’s staff canteen.

All those Polacks “enriching” Britain with their shitty attitudes toward the hated Westerners. Always voting for the socialists, which is why the Left and the media pushed so hard to take them in. Would there ever be a race war they’d be standing with the other side, no question. One example of how when we talk about “Whites” we are being generous. We mean the Western peoples. Otherwise we’re deluding ourselves.

Maybe that is true if you’re thin and cute, but there are guys that fuck these fat chicks (lights off I’m sure) and pretend they are fucking a cute thin chick. No amount of delusional ego assuaging can hide the deep down reality: no one is attracted to a fat chick (weirdo fat fetish losers excluded from present discussion).

Well, there’s disagreement among men, as you can see on here. There’s the “I would never be able to get aroused enough to have sex with a fat girl even if I were on a desert island alone and had no other option” crowd, and there’s the crowd who says men are easily sexually aroused and can get it up for anyone if absolutely necessary.

Fat/beta/omega/loser etc men must be in the latter category, or else fat women would NEVER get laid and they would NEVER get married.

Yes, of course thin and attractive women know the “bangable” attraction standard is much lower than the “girlfriend” attraction standard. That’s why it’s meaningless to me if a guy wants to have sex with me. I assume it and I couldn’t care less. It sounds like I’m bragging but I’m not, because of the very fact that it is so meaningless to me.

[CH: while CH has used the “boner doesn’t lie” trope before, there are obvious exceptions to this rule. for instance, a 15 year old boy can get hard if the wind blows right. is he attracted to the wind? of course not. similarly, it appears there are truly magnificently desperate losers who for reasons beyond my ken have the supernatural ability to get it up for land whales. but then there are men who can get it up for sheep, saint bernards, and corpses.

it’s a better rule if we qualify “the rock hard, pre-cummed, two seconds from ejaculation boner doesn’t lie”. or perhaps “the boner of winner men in good psychological health who can afford to have standards doesn’t lie”.]

That one is from 2011, I wonder if Vox would write that today. The alpha/beta definitions are pretty much established now, aren’t they?

Aside from the fact that some use “beta” as a stand-in for omega, and throw it at a wide range of behaviors. But that is not a habit we see among the writings done by the main bloggers.

When in doubt, though, you can easily get by without using them. Sometimes terminology becomes too much of a crutch. And for some it becomes a way to show that they are in the know. You can discuss game very well without much terminology.

I prefer the simple three-part classification. Threes are easy to remember, have a nice subconscious pro-Western bias in recalling the Trinity (compare the way the Chinese love to make lists of fives), and you don’t get all the omegas thinking they’re sigmas.

I mean, is a guy a gamma or beta? Who cares? Greater beta or lesser beta works if you need a shorthand. You can always drop on the adjectives if you want–I’m a cynical lesser beta, for example.

Plenty of people. It is by far the most significant addition to the list. Beta is the most useless. Sigma is a renegade alpha. Gamma is a form of BETA that is even more delusional that normal. The male frminist. John Scalzi. PZ Myers. Hitler in his youth.

A gamma is a lower beta that is too toxic and delusional that simply calling him a beta isn’t sufficient. He has some advantages intellectually but is butthurt that that doesn’t lead him to success. Think Anil Dash and potentially, Kevin Conboy.

Plenty of people. It is by far the most significant addition to the list. Beta is the most useless. Sigma is a renegade alpha. Gamma is a form of BETA that is even more delusional that normal. The male frminist. John Scalzi. PZ Myers. Hitler in his youth.

Vox’ scheme messes things up by applying “beta” to what we would consider a lesser alpha, and “delta” to beta. The idea of using “delta” was because it’s used in physics to mean “change”, but it stinks because it’s the fourth letter in the alphabet, after gamma, plus it attempts to replace the more entrenched use of “beta” in referring to the average man.

“Sigma”? Okay. “Gamma”? Okay. “Omega” is the same in any case. If we want to use Vox’ terms, that’s okay, but we should use “lesser alpha” and “beta” instead of “beta” and “delta” respectively.

what are the heiarchys of the males, The omega, the Beta, the Beta Buck?, the the Alpha? am i missing any?

Alpha, beta, omega.

Many use beta in the wrong way though, making it too much of an insult. Beta is by far the widest category. Most men are betas. There are highly successful businessmen, generals and celebrities who are betas. Note that while it comes from the animal kingdom, where alpha wolves are leaders and beta wolves are followers, the meaning in “game” is different. Alphas are the ones who know how to use game and do so successfully; betas are the ones who don’t fit that category.

Omegas are easier to define, of course. They are the perpetual losers. Some of them found as keyboard jockeys infesting manosphere forums, since they have a lot of time on their hands, not being burdened by a social life.

I thought “incel” applied to both men and women. I’m all for expanding vocabulary though.

“because those women are adept in ways that beta males aren’t at concealing their misery from public scorn and pity.”

Why are they concealing their misery? Celibacy in unmarried people is not something to be ashamed of; its to be admired. Celibacy should be advertised. Such proclamations make it more likely someone will answer the advertisement.

I can try…;) I know what you’re saying, but men do have a choice. They can sleep with “fatties.” And women do have a choice. They can sleep with “betas.” The fact that neither will do so does not mean they don’t have choices. They just aren’t good ones. It certainly feels involuntary, but by definition, isn’t it voluntary? #letthemeatcake

Kate – that is not necessarily true. Men with a certain skill dearth (aka ‘omegas’) can *not* have sex with fat girls at will. When I was in my early 20s, I probably would’ve had sex with a 50-lb-overweight woman. And been happy about it. I did not have the skillset to do that.

An amusing little dialogue from The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde between Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble, the clergyman with whom she’s in love:

“Miss Prism: You are too much alone, dear Dr. Chasuble. You should get married. A misanthrope I can understand – a womanthrope, never!

Chasuble: [With a scholar’s shudder] Believe me, I do not deserve so neologistic a phrase. The precept as well as the practice of the Primitive Church was distinctly against matrimony.

Miss Prism: [Sententiously] That is obviously the reason why the Primitive Church has not lasted up to the present day. And you do not seem to realise, dear Doctor, that by persistently remaining single, a man converts himself into a permanent public temptation. Men should be more careful; this very celibacy leads weaker vessels astray.

Chasuble: But is a man not equally attractive when married?

Miss Prism: No married man is ever attractive except to his wife.

Chasuble: And often, I’ve been told, not even to her.

Miss Prism: That depends on the intellectual sympathies of the woman. Maturity can always be depended on. Ripeness can be trusted. Young women are green.”

The fat acceptance movement is essentially a feeble attempt at sexual market communism. To “fat acceptors,” everyone should be considered equally beautiful, despite how unfaaaaaaaair nature is or how hard someone works at dieting and the gym, just like under communism everyone would make essentially the same pittance.

I don’t think girls have to be thin to be beautiful, you’ll always have your big boned folks. But when the lines cross into obesity there’s a problem, and it’s curable. Proper diet and exercise, and relegating alcohol drinking or eating a big, carb heavy meal or dessert to once a week.

Few people actually pull it off. The body thinks it’s starving–we just never ran into 4000 calories a day day after day in evolutionary history before–and ramps up hunger and slows down metabolism. Once you go fat, few people go back.

That’s not entirely true, the Vikings and other populations regularly consumed thousands of calories a day to be able to withstand their labor requirements, they simply got most of that in fat and proteins, rather than carbs. Carbs spike insulin levels and cause fat storage. Different races handle carbs differently too, and within each race there are exceptions. What is pretty much universal though is that if you eat low carb, you can’t really be fat. Most Americans would slim way down in a month or two if they simply disavowed sugar, beer and refined grains for awhile.

@Aquila: I’d be curious to see a source for that, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true–they did a LOT more work than we did. I just wonder if they had a *reliable* high-calorie load rather than long stretches with little food punctuated by gorging themselves on a slaughtered pig.

Good point about race–NAMs don’t handle carb loads as well as Asians and whites. Chinese people in particular can probably get away with eating lots of rice–their ancestors did, after all.

I am pleased to see the research underpinning the paleo diet being spread all over the internet. The paleo diet really broke through in 2013. Websites like Mark’s Daily Apple have done much to make this happen.

What is generally holding it back is: 1, people don’t want to hear that their breakfast sandwiches are bad for them, and 2, diet professors at the universities have written books and built their careers on the Conventional Wisdom, “Just eat less. Eat less fat and eat whole grains.” They can’t change their tune now and rewrite their books.

I just wonder if they had a *reliable* high-calorie load rather than long stretches with little food punctuated by gorging themselves on a slaughtered pig.

They lived well, actually. The Norse ate a lot of fish. The weather was a lot warmer 1,000 years ago, so they had more food and better living conditions. Today we live in a “little ice age”. Back then the Vikings grew grapes in Britain (in the Danelaw, the Viking conquest of much of Britain) and Greenland was actually green, hence the name. When Greenland got colder the Vikings had to leave. We can only wish for such beneficial warm weather again.

“Big boned” is nonsense. I am big boned. That means I am 6 foot 5, huge wrists, big hands and feet. BUT, if you saw me you would call me skinny as a rail. Until you got up close and realize you only come up to my elbow. I eat at LEAST 4000 calories a day. I’ve been trying to gain weight since high school, cannot get over 100 kilos.

Of course, I get lots of exercise and never eat shit like McDeath. Funny how that works. Only fat slobs call themselves big boned. Your BONES do not make you FAT.

So your naturally an ectomorph. Truly “big-boned” people are endomorphs and they have the opposite problem that you have – it’s not due to their bones, but it is due to their genetics. I don’t think either ectomorph or endomorph body types are truly problems, some people are meant to be on the skinny side or bigger side, but there are healthy parameters to both that can be achieved with the right diet and exercise.

Once again the Heartiste lays bare that terrible thing called reality. Feminists and other reality deniers scream in impotent rage.

The problem with the “even the ugliest/fattest women can get laid” trope is that the issue is not whether a fat chick can manage once in her life to get a weirdo to drill her face for three perfunctory seconds in an alcoholic haze. For women, sex isn’t the relevant metric. Women want love and commitment with a high value man. On that score, fatties fail miserably.

Yep. This is the gist of it.

Even if we limit our claim to three second drunken sex with losers, fat chicks still have problems in that department that thinner girls don’t have. It’s hard to directly compare the two groups because thinner/prettier girls are less slutty than fatties and fugs, but if we draw on the subset of sexy thin girls who don’t mind boffing the same losers that fatties boff, then we would find the fatties badly outcompeted for the sexual attention of those losers.

You mean, in reality it is not the beautiful girls in high school who are evil and slutty, like we see in Hollywood’s movies where the deviants are the good ones whenever there is an explicit conflict between beauty and ugliness? The horror! What’s next? Most bullies in school actually come from working-class homes, not from the families where the parents managed to get an education? Why would the Hollywood bosses lie to the viewers, I wonder? Almost as if they would be pushing some sort of ideology.

The reason we don’t see the higher sluttiness of fat women, or their Insol nature, is that they are generally invisible to us in the calculation. Like another CH post said, most men don’t really think of them as women. It’s true: it hurts us to put them in the same category as the desirables.

Think it’s not so? Then consider this statement: “He has trouble getting laid.” In fact, if he is even average or slightly below it is easy – because there are ugly, fat, and much older women who would sleep with him. But it hurts us to even think about it. When we say a man has trouble getting laid, we only think of his trouble with the desirable women – and ignore the rest. Proof that they are invisible to us.

You’re right about the ideology, but remember that most people are not attractive and have some degree of resentment for successful people. So they tend to identify with the less-attractive person, so Hollywood has them win to sell tickets. (Compare all the old European fairy tales about the less attractive sister who has the good outcome because she behaves herself/doesn’t act cruel/etc.)

It’s why there are so many lone-wolf heroes in movies but few in real life. Lots of guys hate the whole social game, but in real life you need it to succeed. But it’s a common male fantasy, so it proceeds. In real life the Man with No Name would just be ambushed by a bunch of outlaws.

The other variable that plays out more often with sexless or near-sexless men than with sexless or near-sexless women is that men can throw themselves into a “project” or a hobby or even their work with an intensity that rivals that of a love relationship. I’ve never really met a woman who could do that. So, for some men, the social angle isn’t really missed when they withdraw from the sexual marketplace and into some solitary passion. “The 40-year Old Virgin” kind of depicts this, although obviously in a comic vein.

This corresponds to the “sigma” male in the alphagameplan socio-sexual hierarchy.

Not exactly–the ‘sigma’ is supposed to be desirable according to Vox Day’s original classification. He doesn’t play social games but gets women anyway. You’re describing an omega with a healthy coping strategy, many of whom have been responsible for Western Civ’s greatest hits–Newton comes to mind.

Regarding attractiveness to women as being the measure of one’s worth in life is a pretty natural assumption to make on a game blog where people are discussing what makes one attractive to women, but it’s not necessarily true.

I see your point about how what I described could also apply to an omega with a coping strategy. Fair enough, but I was thinking of a man who does that not out of a desire to “cope” or because he is not attractive to women in general (passion for a specific task and success at it is very attractive to women) but because being with women takes second place to his passion for objective achievements beyond the realm of the “merely” biological.

As Nietzsche said in Zarathustra (paraphrase), “Many times I thought I had encountered a great man, and then I met the silly goose he was married to”. He even goes so far as to say that Socrates married “ironically” because clearly no man of Socrates’ character and depth would have actually found pleasure in the company of a woman. Not sure if that’s true, but it is definitely the case that Socrates spent a heck of a lot of time away from his wife and children. Even Buddha is alleged to have said “A fetter has been placed on me” upon hearing of the birth of his son. These are men who, as you say, are some of the greatest to ever have walked the earth, and they clearly found very little enjoyment in the domestic realm, even though access to that realm was clearly open to them, i.e. they were attractive enough to women to get them to commit to them. Obviously, those were different times and marriage played a much more practical role in daily life than it plays today.

It’s a chicken-and-egg question. A guy might find himself below-average at the mating game and decide to spend his time on spiritual or intellectual pursuits (which were considered more admirable in other times) and actually do quite well there. It might bug you to think of great men as ‘losers’, but great men are great men at least in part because they found something they had a knack for and pushed it to the limit. If Shakespeare had wasted his time trying to become a mathematician, nobody would remember him.

Also, as you say, these were different times. You were supposed to get married–in the Greeks’ case I know you were supposed to churn out future warriors so your polis didn’t get conquered and put to the sword. As another commenter has said, in the old days incels married insols and that was that. There’s no reason to assume an incel has no other value simply because he has no sexual market value. You don’t want to be an incel if you’re studying game, obviously… but think of all the big Christian thinkers, who had to give up sex to come up with what they did. One of Christianity’s big advances, IMHO, was to provide ‘alternative lifestyles’ (snigger away) for people who didn’t want to do the wife-and-kids thing.

One of Christianity’s big advances, IMHO, was to provide ‘alternative lifestyles’ (snigger away) for people who didn’t want to do the wife-and-kids thing.

One of Xtianity’s great crimes against Europe was to take many of the most intelligent men and women, turn them into monks and nuns and forbid them to have children. Their minds were filled with shitty fantasies about how they would be rewarded for billions of years if they only lived like slaves to the Catholic organization until they died. All so the Pope would have a large supply of high-IQ servants who would reinforce his position in the controlled lands.

The effect this had on the gene pool was altogether negative. No wonder Northern Europe rebelled against the Cath organization’s control, and no wonder Cath countries like Spain and Portugal became backwaters that haven’t invented anything for hundreds of years.

But take note – if a people ever conquers another, the clever thing to do is to take the most intelligent of the conquered, praise them and pat them on the backs, then give them higher-paying jobs with this little requirement added: they can never have children. Then sit back and watch the conquered nation lose its high-IQ members. Learn from the Cath organization how to enslave, it is the only thing they are good at.

[CH: for future reference, don’t abbreviate christianity to xtianity, unless you’re also willing to bastardize the words that describe the world’s other major religions with similarly new atheist nerdy snark.]

Yeah that is correct. 50 years ago the media was much smaller and wasn’t pushing the beautiful people and the status hierarchy down everyone’s throats 24/7 so the average person and the dregs still had hope.

> “pushing the beautiful people and the status hierarchy down everyone’s throats 24/7”

It’s very difficult to overemphasize quite how corrosive that shit is on women’s souls.

At the opposite extreme, porn does the same thing for guys, with all that “pointy elbow” nonsense, and then dudes can’t settle down with a chick who would make a wonderful wife and mother because she isn’t quite as hawt as [the young] Megan Fox.

“At the opposite extreme, porn does the same thing for guys, with all that “pointy elbow” nonsense, and then dudes can’t settle down with a chick who would make a wonderful wife and mother because she isn’t quite as hawt as [the young] Megan Fox.”

Good stuff here Zombie. But don’t get discouraged. Some of us are still rational about it all. All I ever wanted was to settle down and keep one good woman. I’m not out there busting my balls to game the hottest girls in the prime of their youth anymore. I’m here learning so I can keep myself focused and hold onto the one I’ve got. Hopefully for the rest of my life.

That would support the statement that they are generally sluttier, then. Is it because they have to be in the hope of catching someone, or because they are generally less concerned with how their lives are lived?

Weird. When you hear a mother shout at her uncontrolled spawn in the grocery store, her hull never contains a reasonably-sized fat stockpile.

With all the agribusiness crap, it takes a lot of self-control to stay thin.

Which is why it is smart to stay away from grains. There is nothing in them that you can’t get in other ways. With paleo eating breaking through in 2013 there is no excuse, everyone can find out the truth.

Chubby chasers are a sorry bunch, picking not the lowest-hanging fruits but the ones that have fallen off to rot on the ground, convincing themselves that it’s a choice instead of something inadequacy forces them to.

Maybe there are people who convince themselves like you suggest, but I’m not one of them.

Some chubby chasers claim their preferences go back to pre-pubertal age. I can’t claim anything like that, but as far as I can remember, I’ve found fat women to be sexually attractive. Not all of them, they can be ugly, and not exclusively fat women, but generally moreso than average ones.

somewhat offtopic, but i regularly see white knights defending fatties by saying perception of beauty is culturally dictated, and they cite that fat women were considered desirable in former times because being fat = had access to food. what counterexample can i use to smash this view point to pieces?

Fatness was not considered beautiful, it was just a sign of social status, ie, that you had enough money/power/influence to waste calories on yourself.

The ancient figurines of the “Earth mother” – those fat little naked women the feminists trot out – were symbols of worship or sacrifice, depicting not “sexiness” but a desire for good rains and enough food to keep the kids from starving.

In ancient Egyptian art, people often had artists depict them, in public art, with rolls of fat on their bellies as they aged, symbolizing their success and prosperity. However, younger individuals were always shown as thin – as were the gods. If fatness had truly been attractive, it stands to reason that young women and goddesses, such as Isis, would have been depicted with the same rolls of fat.

You can open just about any mythological text and find the thinness, fairness, gentleness, and beauty of women being extolled. Nowhere will you ever find a description of a human heroine or divine female with the word “hefty” attached to it.

There is very convincing thesis about the Wilendorf Venus type of fattie with mega breasts and mega butts.

The artist wanted more tits and more ass. More tits and more ass. Less face less arms more tits more ass. The ethology of baby seagulls was used to explain it by a Neuroscientist called Chahandrahani. If you paint red on a stick a gull chick will tap tap tap if you paint three red stripes on a stick the chick will go nuts and ignore the stick with one red stripe. More is better: more tits more ass. See Pamela Anderson.

, and they cite that fat women were considered desirable in former times because being fat = had access to food.

Where are the Greek and Roman statues showing this? There is a reason “Looking like a Greek god” means a perfect physical specimen: thousands of years ago, they had the same standards as we do today.

In fact, art has consistently held the same standards for beauty. And it is not just in the West: look at Chinese and Japanese art and it is slim, young women who were desired.

Look at the statue Venus de Milo (130-100 BC). Slim and with proportions we appreciate today.

Look at the painting The Birth of Venus (1486). Not athletically slim, but certainly not fat, and with a firm body that men hope for in their wives in our time.

Look at something less famous: for example James Tissot’s painting, Young Lady in a Boat (1870). Fat? Absolutely not.

Search for “women in renaissance art” in Google Images. Some are overweight – never, ever obese – but most are slim. Look for example at Agnolo Bronzino’s Portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi (1540). This is a well-to-do woman, the wife of the politician Bartolomeo Panciatichi. She has leisure time, but that doesn’t mean she makes herself fat. She is slim.

Look at Johannes Vermeer’s painting Girl With a Pearl Earring (1665). Slim and with a facial structure we see as attractive today.

In Medieval literature, when women are described, they are never fat. And their breasts are described with words that show them to be firm and round, the way we like them today: “orbs”, for example. Not a fat woman’s hanging sacks.

The only consistently chubby-chasing painter was Rubens (1577-1640). Over and over again his paintings of fat women are what feminists hold up as “proof” that people liked fat women in the past. But even in his paintings they are only overweight, never obese.

No, being fat was simply respected as a sign of wealth – in men. You never hear it about women. And when? Not consistently. Certainly not among nomadic warriors, or peoples who were constantly at war.

It is an observation among many, that needs to be done when there are those who deny it. Your snyde comment, insinuating that it is an unworthy waste of time, somehow fails to complain about those feminists who spend essay after essay after essay proclaiming that fat women are just as goodlooking as slim women, that there is no such thing as beauty, and that slim women are ugly – contradictory views that they hold simultaneously.

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Blacks, and I did not speak out because I was not a Black.
Then they came for the Latinos, and I did not speak out because I was not a Latino.
Then they came to my door and told me taxes were down, the streets were secure and ninety percent of conflict in society was over.

Been thinking a lot lately about Nietzsche’s statement “Thoughts that come on dove’s feet guide the world”. I take it to mean that nothing important is ever actually said out loud. Everything important happens silently. All the hamster rationalizations in the world are worth nothing compared to the fact that when a woman sees a man and is instantly either attracted or repulsed by him, certain actions will follow. I don’t even debate this shit anymore, because it’s so obvious that the world is primarily run along the lines of “Do as I say, not as I do”, which ultimately implies that what people say is really not all that important because, if it was, it would align with what they do. The people commenting at that link know they are fucked, but they can’t admit that out loud, so they rationalize. Which brings to mind another quote, which I heard was attributable to Mark Twain (too lazy to Google right now), which states “Don’t lose your illusions. They’re all you have.” For those folks over at Jezebel, this is absolutely the case, so might as well piss into a hurricane than try to convince them otherwise.

Fat Women as Jews who try to manipulate and destroy all the psyches which they come in contact with.

Manipulate and destroy EVERYTHING.

Very, very profound.

And it begs a chick -vs- egg analysis:

Did they become manipulative only after they got fat, because manipulativeness is the only remainig recourse for fat women?

Or were they always so manipulative [even as little girls] that they felt they had enough psychological advantage over other people that they could say “to hell with dieting” and then proceed to eat their way to candyland and back and become disgusting blubberous orcas and yet still be able to manipulate the gullible into doing their bidding?

“Or were they always so manipulative [even as little girls] that they felt they had enough psychological advantage over other people”

In my experience the emotional manipulation starts after they get fat at about 3 years of age. Simply because they cant run around and climb trees like the other kids they start to manipulate some kids to play sit down or sedentary cames with them…

..fat – its like being locked inside on a beautiful summers day….

Then after about 35yo the fat girl of the group will always be the one into either religion, or Tarot cards, starsigns and the supernatural… again trying to manipulate her “friends” with spirituality or voodoo..

In Islamic countries its always the fat old girls making young women wear Burqas, cutting off their clits and ordering honour killings.

If you are in any kind of a situation where you’re so exhausted that the caffeine does no good anymore, and you have to start hitting the carbs for energy bursts to keep you going, then you will NOT be able to lose weight.

So start your weight loss regimen by sleeping 10 hours a night.

Give up every other distraction in your life in favor of GOOD SLEEP.

The other tragedy here is boys who grew up without fathers [either actually, or essentially], and who have no earthly idea what it means to get involved in a sport and get in shape.

Boys who throw balls just like girls.

They’ve got my sympathy. My pity even.

The nihilistic destruction left in the wake of some damned sperm donor, like YaReally or gunslingergregei, who dumped his seed in a bitch’s cootch, but then didn’t hang around to teach the poor boy how to toss a football.

You gotta quit the grains. You will lose two pounds a week in the first four weeks without even going hungry.

All grains, all carbs, turn to blood sugar, glucose. The body hurries to produce more of the insulin hormone to store away the glucose, because too much glucose is poison to the body. What can be stored away in muscles and the liver, will be. But chances are you are not working out when you eat it, so the rest will be stored away in fat cells, and that is how you gain weight.

Then the glucose is gone, taken care of quickly, and the body has nothing left to eat two hours later. You get tired and hungry and eat more carbs.

The body can use either protein or sugar as energy, and it prefers sugar since it is easier. We used to get maybe 15 percent of our energy from sugar – carbs – in the Stone Age, but today it is as high as 60-70 percent. Way too much. (“But we need carbs!” Yes, but not more than 15 percent. And we get that simply from eating vegetables.)

By eating so much carbs, and so much pure sugar, we make our bodies focus on sugar for energy and ignore the protein we eat. By contrast, if you eat mostly fat/protein for a while, then after 4-5 weeks a transformation will occur. Your body will switch to focusing on protein for energy. Just like our bodies used to do for hundreds of thousands of years. Now you have something going. Now your body will burn its own fat stores for energy all day long. You will feel much less hungry, and you will lose weight. And of course, when you do eat, the energy stays in your body longer, because you are eating meat, eggs, fish, nuts and vegetables, not carbs. This is the paleo diet, it is healthy and it works.

As a bonus it reduces or even eliminates skin problems. Grains, especially wheat, is real bad news for your skin. Carbs (and soda, candy, etc) raises your blood sugar, which results in inflammation on a cellular level. This can lead to all sorts of bad things, but in particular heart disease and wrinkled skin. In addition, when our blood sugar goes up rapidly and often, the sugar can actually attach to the collagen in our skin, making it stiff and inflexible – which makes it easier damaged. There is a scientific term for this: “glycation”. You get stiff and sagging skin.

Likewise, the stress hormone cortisol breaks down your skin, which is why you should get a lot of sleep, and not drink much coffee. Coffee could cause the body to release cortisol. Cortisol breaks down muscle tissue, thins our skin, decalcifies our bones and elevates our blood sugar.

…And that raising of the blood sugar, aside from being bad in itself, also makes the body crave more carbs when the sugar rush is over.

Try going without grains, pasta and rice for a few weeks and you’ll feel the difference.

But if you still want to eat rice and potatoes, which are full of carbs in the form of starch, you can. You just need to cool them in the fridge after having boiled them. this turns the starch into resistant starch – harder for the stomach acid to break down because the “polysaccharides” are straightened out and then have less surface area to reach. Resistant starch has tons of good health effects – for example they make you more “insulin sensitive”, meaning you produce less insulin. Resistant starch also feeds the bacteria in your gut, and this gut flora helps break down food, remove toxins etc.

But you don’t want to eat cold potatoes and rice. So heat them in the microwave oven to about 130-140 F. The starch will still be resistant at that temperature.

These two phrases together are the answer to the question that Freud could/would not answer: “what does woman want?

[]the one thing in life that is most important to women: The love and commitment of a desirable man.[]
[]Fact is that as long as a guy is at least average or slightly below, it is easy to get sex – but with ugly, fat, or much older, undesirable women.[]

To merge these two wise observations: for nearly all women “desirable man” means “way out of her league”, and then as these summary tables humorously show the critical level is around 2 SMV points of difference.

Whether she is a shapely beauty or a waddling pigster or an average homely.
And for shapely beauties life is horrible: there are extremely few men out of their league, and those few have to be extreme psychopaths.

Almost all women get turned on only by men who have two nearly overlapping “qualities”: somewhat more sociopathic than they are, and who can get laid with other women hotter than themselves.

Since they cannot usually directly know how popular is a man with other women, they use his lack of motivation towards committing to her as a way to estimate it: if he is not interested in committing to her, just fucking her, and not that keen, that means he has better options, and thus is desirable.

Almost all women are only turned on by men who can hardly be bothered to pump and dump them, and feel menaced and disgusted by men who want to have exclusive relationships with them, because they must be losers that no hotter women want. For almost all women when a man say “I only want you because I love you as a person” means “I don’t have better options than you because no hotter women want me”.

“Game” is about gaining those critical 2 SMV value points for men; usually 1 SMV value point by getting a slim, stylish body, and 1 SMV by becoming more sociopathic and indifferent to getting laid with any particular woman.

Average men as the comment above says can only be desired by way below average women (fatties, cougars, …), unless they gain those 2 extra SMV points and then they become sexually desirable by average looking women.

Well im an incel and life isnt that easy when you know women are repulsed by you but im glad all of you on this site are getti.ng laid for me. I would have to attribute my inceldom to my brown skin color i live in the gulf coast so even minority women prefer white guys. Combine my skin with a below average face and a shy demeaner and you have a pussy dryer. All you can really do at. This point is to avoidwomen at all costs and focus o.n prostitutes. Life is a game of.luck anyways so i aint complaining.

Is there such a thing as being voluntarily celibate when you’re a man? I guess you can never know the life of another’s mind, but I think most men who claim to be so are making necessity a virtue. During my dry spells I always tend to indulge in hobbies and distractions while retreating inward (I am a flawed man, I’ll admit) but the dissatisfaction of not getting laid is pretty much unavoidable.

If I read him correctly, Tesla was quite happy to be celibate. He wasn’t a bad looking guy (for this time) and had money and a creativity about him that I’m certain could have garnered him a hand or two, so I suspect he did make that choice. Even bragged about it sometimes.

[…] for being gay. The peanut gallery might respond that you have to have gay sex, but that there are hordes of sexless straight men and women out there implies that actual sex is sufficient but not necessary to claim an orientation. Plus, if […]

Glad you called out Amy. Seems like a decent enough chick, but she still has a never ending supply of male/female false equivalences like your typical female. She’s just more subtle and reasonable, but they’re usually buried in there with the semantics.

The greatness of a man’s life is not measured by the number of children he had or even the number of women he seduced. Who remembers how many children Columbus, Shakespeare or Mozart or Darwin himself had? Isaac Newton had no wife or children and by all accounts had little interest in chasing pussy. *Loser?

Don’t get me wrong, fucking women can be great but we are often in danger of over-stating its importance. Only when a man realizes – like a diamond bullet between his eyes – that his self worth doesn’t rest on the validation of the fickler sex, but on his own inner, self contained, strength, will he be able to reach his true potential as a man. (Ironically, this is the very moment women start to become extremely interested in him)

Dear Lord, which of your commandments is the greatest?
They are all great my son.
Yes Lord, but which is the greatest?
My son, the greatest commandment is III: You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. For on this commandment, hangs all the others.

It’s been said that – all human desire amounts to a quest for immortality. Women have been gifted only one card in the “immortality game” and only a limited time in which to play it. Bringing a new life into the world is – and always will be – the pinnacle of a woman’s existence. And the ultimate possible feminine achievement is to give birth to a great man. (I guess that’s why there seems to be something especially sad about an old childless woman)

*Sir Isaac Newton died childless on 20 March 1727 at the age of 85. He is acknowledged as being the father of modern science.

“Many of the most brilliant intellects of our time have urged us to … self-conscious snatching at a rare delight.

Walter Pater said that we were all under sentence of death, and the only course was to enjoy exquisite moments simply for those moments’ sake. The same lesson was taught by the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde.

It is the carpe diem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.

Great joy does, not gather the rosebuds while it may; its eyes are fixed on the immortal rose which Dante saw. Great joy has in it the sense of immortality; the very splendour of youth is the sense that it has all space to stretch its legs in. In all great comic literature, in “Tristram Shandy” or “Pickwick”, there is this sense of space and incorruptibility; we feel the characters are deathless people in an endless tale.

It is true enough, of course, that a pungent happiness comes chiefly in certain passing moments; but it is not true that we should think of them as passing, or enjoy them simply “for those moments’ sake.” To do this is to rationalize the happiness, and therefore to destroy it.

Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized. Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it–an almost painful happiness.

A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment’s sake. He enjoys it for the woman’s sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag.

The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end.

These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary.

Once look at them as moments after Pater’s manner, and they become as cold as Pater and his style.

Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.“

Don’t get me wrong, fucking women can be great but we are often in danger of over-stating its importance. Only when a man realizes – like a diamond bullet between his eyes – that his self worth doesn’t rest on the validation of the fickler sex, but on his own inner, self contained, strength, will he be able to reach his true potential as a man.””””””””’

Dear Lord, which of your commandments is the greatest?
They are all great my son.
Yes Lord, but which is the greatest?
My son, the greatest commandment is III: You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. For on this commandment, hangs all the others.””””””””””

yea that’s good stuff
yea I sway sometimes but the mission comes first most of time
and sometimes the mission is pussy

“Women have been gifted only one card in the “immortality game” and only a limited time in which to play it. Bringing a new life into the world is – and always will be – the pinnacle of a woman’s existence.”

Haven’t ever tried it on a woman since I thought it up, but I think that a nuclear neg of some woman going on about how miraculous giving birth is would be along the lines of “Women don’t actually create life, they just redistribute it from plants and animals into human form via a bio-mechanical process. Big deal. It’s not like there is any more ‘life’ in the world just because you have a new baby.” Too complicated to use on a club rat, but a manjaw lawyer would definitely understand the semantic distinction between ‘create’ and ‘redistribute’ in that comment and realize how deflating of the female pretension it is. In that distinction is the whole path to taking women down off any kind of pedestal just because they are the ones who give birth, which is itself obviously only one of the kinds of pedestals they get put on, but it’s a biggie. When word of Obamacare requiring maternity coverage be put into every policy, even those sold to men, lots of women justified the additional cost burden by saying that if it weren’t for them, men wouldn’t be here. Which is of course, BS, because no man alive ever asked to be born in the first place. There’s a reason why a lot of cultures have a proverb along the lines of “Best to have never been born.”

from my outsider perspective on US social life I would think getting laid is the easiest thing but after asking around I realized it’s just a myth and the average US man ends up with just a handful of sex partner in his whole lifetime just like everywhere else.

According to a Crimson survey of the class of 2009, in their four years at Harvard, 52 percent of the students had one or zero sexual partners, and only 28 percent had even one dating partner.
………………….
Other revealing statistics include that 31 percent of U.S. college women are still virgins at graduation and that college male sexual activity is down from 2.1 partners in 2001 to 1.6 partners in 2006.

But Harvard is at or below the mean, notes the story, because they are constantly busy with classes and projects.

From another study, we get the number that women have an average of four sex partners in their whole lives, men have an average of seven. (The women lie about the number, of course. As shown in CH’s story, “Why GSS Sex Questions Should Be Taken With A Flat Of Salt”.)

I am a 20 year old incel. The closest I have come to a girl is … nothing. Nothing more than chit-chat at work or correspondence over a group assignment.

I am not the type to wallow in pity. I decided to go the gym because I thought that muscles =sex. I am 1 year into my gym regime and i have gained muscle (6kgs), but i haven’t come any closer to getting laid.

I used to get depressed about this, but now iv’e accepted it. I probably won’t get laid unless I pay for it,and i don’t plan on paying for it until i’m 30.

I usually read Sailer and whatnot, so this site is on the periphery of my interests. I can’t take any of the advice that Heartsie offers seriously. No amount of “game” is going to get me laid if i can’t even talk to women.

Right now i am in university, where the sex ratio is something like 2 girls for every male. If you can’t get laid in this environment, then you can’t get laid anywhere. I will probably never have such favorable odds again.

I often think about why it is that I can’t get laid. I think that the predominant factor is my shyness and awkwardness. This really sucks because I can be confident and outgoing around some people, but hot girls give me anxiety. It really is a sight to see. My face goes all red and i can’t stop shaking. It’s just horrible.

I would say that my face is average, and i am slightly above average height (5’11”). I see less attractive males with females all the time, so i know it can’t be looks.

I would be willing to settle down with a 6+/10, but apparently that might be too high an expectation. I really don’t see the point in trying for anything below 6. As i have always said , ” i’m attracted to attractive girls, not girls.”

[CH: no one ever went to the moon without first learning to walk on earth.]

Shyness goes away with age, that’s all I can say. Also, it is good that you read Steve Sailer et al. We are soon at the crossroads, and we all need to do our part, no matter where we are in life. Reading about the real stuff puts our lives in perspective.